Hargovind Dayal Srivastava & Anr v. G. N. Verma & Ors.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: A. N. Ray
M. H. Beg
P. S. Kailasam
Judgment Date: 1977-01-12
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Hargovind Dayal Srivastava and Anr

Respondents

G. N. Verma and Ors.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• D. Mukherjea
• R. N. Sharma
• Umesh Chand
• R. N. Trivedi
• S. P. Pathak
• Hari Nath Tilhari
• S. R. Srivastava
• M. N. Sharma
• O. P. Lal

Counsels for Respondents

• Yogeshwar Prasad
• Rani Arora
• S. K. Bagga
• S. Bagga
• O. P. Rana

Case Synopsis & Summary

This criminal contempt appeal concerns two bar leaders who resolved that the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court acted in a partisan manner under the influence of the Allahabad Bar. The Allahabad High Court issued contempt notices against the appellants, which were discharged but accompanied by observations. The Supreme Court examined whether criminal contempt existed and whether the High Court properly distinguished criminal contempt from contumacious conduct. It held that the High Court had confused the two concepts and that, if contempt had occurred, the High Court should have punished it rather than merely discharge the notices. The Court acknowledged the duty of lawyers to maintain dignity and decorum in the judiciary, noting that lawyers are custodians of civilization and must discharge their duties with dignity and discipline. It also observed that the language used in the resolution was unfortunate and improper, though not necessarily beyond reform. Ultimately, the appeal was disposed of with the observation that the notices were discharged and that the matter should be viewed in light of disciplinary norms. The decision underscores the boundary between permissible critique of judicial administration and criminal contempt while emphasizing the protective role of lawyers toward the judiciary.

Provisions of Law Cited

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971Clause 14 of the U.P. High Court's Amalgamation Order, 1948

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Lawyers are custodians of civilisation
It is the duty of lawyers to protect the dignity and decorum of the judiciary
Lawyers have to discharge their duties with dignity, decorum and discipline

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that the High Court’s discharge of contempt notices reflected a misclassification of the act as criminal contempt. They acknowledged the resolution’s language was unfortunate and not proper, but contended it did not amount to criminal contempt and that if any contempt existed it should have been dealt with as a disciplinary matter rather than a criminal one; they stressed the bar’s duty to preserve dignity and decorum in the judiciary while urging restraint in punitive measures.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the resolution and its publication in newspapers amounted to contempt and contumacious conduct, reflecting an attack on the Chief Justice’s office. They argued that the High Court’s notices were warranted to uphold the dignity of the judiciary and that the appellants’ conduct fell squarely within contempt.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

601 ### l HARGOVIND DAYAL SRIVASTAVA & ANR: _v._ G. N. VERMA & ORS. _January_ 12, 1977 [A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND P. s. KAILASAM, JJ.] _Contempt_ _of_ _Courts_ _Act_ _1971-Criminal_ _contempt-Duty_ _of_ _members_ _of_ _the bar to protect dignity and decorum_ _of_ _judiciary._ A B The appellant No. 1 is the President of the Oudh Bar and appellant No. 2 is the Chairman of Action Committee of the Oudh Bar Association. They met and passed a Resolution that the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court was acting in a most partisan manner under the influence of the Allahabad Bar and that it was unbecoming of the office which he holds. C The High Court issued notices for contempt, _inter alia,_ to the appellants. The High Court discharged the notices but made certain observations against the appellants. HELD : 1. If the High Court found that there was any cqptempt it should have punished the appellants. The High Court confused criminal contempt with contumacious conduct. This Court is unable to find that the High Court D found contemners guilty of criminal contempt. [602 D, G, HJ 2. There is no gainsaying that the members of the Bar did not act with dignity in regard to the resolution. The language used by them was unfortu· nate,. It is the duty of lawyers to protect the dignity and decorum of the judiciary. If lawyers fail in their duty the faith of the people in the judiciary would be undermined to a large extent. It is said that lawyers are the custodian of civilization Lawyers have to discharge their duties with dignity, decomm and discipline. [603 C-D] E CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 315 of 1974. Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 22-5-1974 of the Allahabad High Court in Contempt Case No. 43/73. _D. Mukherjea,_ _R._ _N. Sharma, Umesh Chand,_ _R._ _N. Trivedi, S._ _P._ _Pathak, Hari_ _Nath_ _Tilhari,_ _S._ _R._ _Srivastava, M. N. Sharma_ and _0._ _P._ _Lal_ for the Appellants. _Yogeshwar Prasad,_ _(Miss)_ _Rani_ _Arora,_ _S._ _K. Bagga_ and _(Mrs.)_ _S. Bagga,_ for Respondent No. 1. _0. P._ _Rana_ for Respondents 2 and 3. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C. J. This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 22 May 1974 of the High Co1,1rt of Allahabad in Criminal Contempt Case No. 43 of 1973. . The High Court issued notices to five persons on . the ground that they committed contempt of Court. F G H. A JB ## c D E F G #### I! 602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977] 2 S.C.R. The two appellants before us are the President of the Avadh Bar Association and the Chairman, Action Committee of the Avadh Bar Association. There were three charges against the appellants. It is not necessary to refer in detail to the same. The gist of the charge against the appellants was that they had met and resolved that the Chief Justice was acting in a most partisan manner under the influence of the Allahabad Bar. The text of the resolution was this-"The Action Committee is of the opinion that the Chief Justice is acting in the discharge of administrative power under clause 14 of the U.P. High Court's Amalgamation Order, 1948 in a most partisan manner under the influence of Allahabad Bar quite unbecoming of the office which he holds". The High Court discharged the notices .. The High Court yet made certain observations; some of which are confusing, some of which are conflicting and some of which are vague. If the High_ Court found that there was any contempt it should have punished the appellants. The High Court however discharged the notices. The High Court held that the Cha.irman of the Action Committee, described as contemner No. 2 was actively associated with the passing of the resolution which contained disparaging remarks about the Chief Justice and since he also issued that resolution for publication in newspapers, he is guilty of 'Criminal Contempt'. The High Court held that since the resolution was passed under the presidentship of the first appellant described as contemner No. 1, he is as much guilty of having committed contempt as contemner No. 2 was. The High Court further held that contemners Nos. 1 & 2 are guilty of .:ontumacious conduct, and the High Court gave the ground that they were responsible for the passing of the resolution. At another place the High Court used words showing that the conduct of the appellants individually was considered only "indiscreet" by it. The High Court confused 'criminal contempt' with 'contumacious conduct'. The matter becomes clear when the High Court said "we do not propose to punish contemners Nos. 1 & 2 for the contumacious conduct of which we have adjudged them guilty though we express our disapproval of that conduct and hope that the indiscretion will not be repeated". We are unable to find that the High Court found the contemners guilty of criminal contempt. It is true that the High Court referred to the contumacious conduct of the appellants but the High Court did not wish to proceed against the appe1lants. The High Court said on that aspect as follows : HARGOVIND DAYAL _V·_ G. N. VERMA _(Ray,_ C. _].)_ 603 "It is a matter of regret that the contemners who are prominent members of the Avadh Bar, should have themselves embarked on the path of vilifying the Chief Justice of this Court and that we do not want to be over-sensitive in the matter, keeping in mind the surrounding circumstances in which the contumacious act was committed by them and also keeping in view the fact that it was. a single act of the Chief Justice for which the attack was made, we do not propose to punish contemners for the contumacious conduct for which we have adjudged them guilty, though we expres£ our strong disapproval of that conduct and hope that the indiscretion will not be repeated". Counsel for the appellants did not justify the language of the resolution. There is no gainsaying that the members of the Bar did not act with dignity in regard to the resolution. The language used by them was unfortunate. Counsel for the appellants rightly said that it was not proper and it should not have been passed in that manner. It is the duty of lawyers to protect the dignity and decorum of the judiciary. If lawyers fail in their duty the faith of the people in the judiciary will be undermined to a large extent. It is said that lawyers are the custodians of civilisation. Lawyers have fo discharge their duty with dignity, decorum and discipline. In view of the fact that the notices were discharged, the appeal is disposed of with the foregoing observations. **P.H.P.** _Appeal allowed._ **A** **B** # **c** **D**